[Cyberyeti]

 blackshoe, on 2018-July-20, 23:21, said:

Hm. Humans weren't around back then. So who caused all that warming? Dinosaurs? Aliens?

From what I can see nobody knows for certain.

[Al_U_Card]

Natural variation, coming out of the ice-age covers it. Various orbital, oceanic and solar considerations end the cold regime and warming occurs. The planet has been cooling for several millennia with regular upticks (Minoan, Roman, Medieval, Modern) as all those factors join with the human influence of agriculture, urban heat island and CO2 to complicate it. Swings of several degrees over relatively short periods are indeed mysterious but not as far-fetched as the CO2 "control-knob" nonsense used by the computer model crowd.

[kenberg]

 y66, on 2018-June-24, 09:38, said:

I've seen Hansen talk. He really is his own worst enemy when it comes to persuading people much like the effect Krugman has on some retired math professors who post here, only 1000x more shrill. I was struck by this story from last week in which Angela Merkle assured workers they would not be left behind in Germany's climate policies. That's not just good politics, it's good thinking. If Obama and Clinton had said "we are thinking of workers first" and meant it at every opportunity, the future for workers and the planet would look a lot less bleak than it does at the moment. No doubt, even Hansen gets this now.

We retired math profs have to read this thread more often. I do think that tone can be a problem in finding support: I am neither an economist nor a climate scientist but I'll illustrate with Krugman rather than Hansen since I know virtually nothing about Hansen. Krugman's style is "I'm brilliant, other economists are idiots, pay no attention to them, listen to me". I might not be, well.definitely am not, capable of holding my own in an economics debate with Krugman but I am very skeptical that everyone who disagrees with him is a scoundrel or an idiot..
So back to Hansen or to any shrill advocate. An argument should rest on its merits. And, if possible, it should be presented so that the non-experts can grasp the general thrust of it. When someone advances an argument, I assume that he thinks he is right. Of course. Nothing wrong with believing oneself to be right. And no doubt some who disagree are ill-informed, some have a hidden reason for disagreeing. But there will also be others who disagree even though they are intelligent and serious.

In mathematics, a proposed theorem either has a proof or it doesn't [Ok, there could be some debate about what system we are working in, but even that is made explicit]. It might take a while to evaluate a proposed proof, but after a reasonable period everyone agrees: The proof holds up, or the proof does not hold up. Few real-world things work that way.

[Al_U_Card]

And as Einstein said: "It only takes one contrary example to prove my theory wrong." (Referring to consensus pressure aligned against him.) Consensus only means that there is agreement, hopefully well-founded and robust enough to explain all real-world data encountered. Thus far, ALL of the alarmist scare stories have not only not panned out, the warming and more carbon-rich atmosphere is actually beneficial. We are the proof and only models and temperature series adjustments and hokey shtick stats are around to sell the message. Tax and power grab, par excellence.

[johnu]

 Al_U_Card, on 2018-July-28, 19:49, said:

And as Einstein said: "It only takes one contrary example to prove my theory wrong."

 Al_U_Card, on 2018-July-28, 19:49, said:

Thus far, ALL of the alarmist scare stories have not only not panned out, the warming and more carbon-rich atmosphere is actually beneficial.

So, global warming is beneficial. I guess there is no point in further arguments.

[Al_U_Card]

Studies do show the first 1.5C or so to improve our condition. Current evidence tends to concur. I post peer-reviewed studies to support such assertions, because they exist and are not just modeled projections.

Laughter and mockery are simply signs of lack of evidence. Even reading the IPCC's own WG assessments puts the lie to alarmism, one only has to read them and compare that to the politicised "interpretation" provided by the SPMs to realize that Ben Santer's 1995 AGW "fingerprint" assertion was a total fabrication and akin to the new-found reliance upon "expert" opinion rather than actual science.

[johnu]

 Al_U_Card, on 2018-July-29, 12:04, said:

Laughter and mockery are simply signs of lack of evidence.

I would say they are signs of incredulity and disbelief.

[PassedOut]

The NYT Magazine has a good overview of the history of the effort to stop global warming: Losing Earth: The Decade We Almost Stopped Climate Change

Quote

The world has warmed more than one degree Celsius since the Industrial Revolution. The Paris climate agreement — the nonbinding, unenforceable and already unheeded treaty signed on Earth Day in 2016 — hoped to restrict warming to two degrees. The odds of succeeding, according to a recent study based on current emissions trends, are one in 20. If by miracle we are able to limit warming to two degrees, we will only have to negotiate the extinction of the world’s tropical reefs, sea-level rise of several meters and the abandonment of the Persian Gulf. The climate scientist James Hansen has called two-degree warming “a prescription for long-term disaster.” Long-term disaster is now the best-case scenario. Three-degree warming is a prescription for short-term disaster: forests in the Arctic and the loss of most coastal cities. Robert Watson, a former director of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, has argued that three-degree warming is the realistic minimum. Four degrees: Europe in permanent drought; vast areas of China, India and Bangladesh claimed by desert; Polynesia swallowed by the sea; the Colorado River thinned to a trickle; the American Southwest largely uninhabitable. The prospect of a five-degree warming has prompted some of the world’s leading climate scientists to warn of the end of human civilization.

Is it a comfort or a curse, the knowledge that we could have avoided all this?

Because in the decade that ran from 1979 to 1989, we had an excellent opportunity to solve the climate crisis. The world’s major powers came within several signatures of endorsing a binding, global framework to reduce carbon emissions — far closer than we’ve come since. During those years, the conditions for success could not have been more favorable. The obstacles we blame for our current inaction had yet to emerge. Almost nothing stood in our way — nothing except ourselves.

Nearly everything we understand about global warming was understood in 1979. By that year, data collected since 1957 confirmed what had been known since before the turn of the 20th century: Human beings have altered Earth’s atmosphere through the indiscriminate burning of fossil fuels. The main scientific questions were settled beyond debate, and as the 1980s began, attention turned from diagnosis of the problem to refinement of the predicted consequences. Compared with string theory and genetic engineering, the “greenhouse effect” — a metaphor dating to the early 1900s — was ancient history, described in any Introduction to Biology textbook. Nor was the basic science especially complicated. It could be reduced to a simple axiom: The more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, the warmer the planet. And every year, by burning coal, oil and gas, humankind belched increasingly obscene quantities of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

Why didn’t we act? A common boogeyman today is the fossil-fuel industry, which in recent decades has committed to playing the role of villain with comic-book bravado. An entire subfield of climate literature has chronicled the machinations of industry lobbyists, the corruption of scientists and the propaganda campaigns that even now continue to debase the political debate, long after the largest oil-and-gas companies have abandoned the dumb show of denialism. But the coordinated efforts to bewilder the public did not begin in earnest until the end of 1989. During the preceding decade, some of the largest oil companies, including Exxon and Shell, made good-faith efforts to understand the scope of the crisis and grapple with possible solutions.

The focus of the piece is on the people involved, rather than on the scientific details, and it's an interesting read.

[Al_U_Card]

The lack of real science in this field (and particularly the reporting thereof) is astounding. If there was a real, provable, reproducible relation between [CO2] and global temperature, it would be front and center. Presented for debate, accepted as fact (science can do that, even with partial to near-complete understanding) and subject to verification by the appropriate actions to change [CO2] and predict and record the subsequent change to global temperature. NONE of this exists nor is it even vaguely available in any form other than calculations by computer climate models that have the assumption of effect included in their equations.
Climate is not an HVAC system and CO2 is not the thermostat. If there is anything nefarious or dubious in this area, it is the fakery and sleight-of-hand used by adherents to promulgate alarm and action. (At any cost, without reference to efficiency or efficacy.)
What actual science indicates is not something man can do much about. Our money would be much better spent elsewhere.

[Al_U_Card]

Yet another "projection" of doom. Wet bulb or lights out?

Who will stop those Chinese climate criminals from continuing their carbonized way of life? This report is alarmism at its most extreme. Honestly, MIT? What hath grants wrought?

[johnu]

 Al_U_Card, on 2018-August-01, 10:49, said:

The lack of real science in this field (and particularly the reporting thereof) is astounding. If there was a real, provable, reproducible relation between [CO2] and global temperature, it would be front and center. Presented for debate, accepted as fact (science can do that, even with partial to near-complete understanding) and subject to verification by the appropriate actions to change [CO2] and predict and record the subsequent change to global temperature.

And yet, there is almost unanimous agreement among the scientific community.

Scientific consensus: Earth's climate is warming

 Al_U_Card, on 2018-August-01, 10:49, said:

NONE of this exists nor is it even vaguely available in any form other than calculations by computer climate models that have the assumption of effect included in their equations.

Yes, much of the work has been computer climate modeling. It's real science, just like the weather predicting computer models that track hurricanes and typhoons, and predict tornadoes, etc.

And of course, you are ignoring countless laboratory experiments which have studied the effects of CO2 under laboratory conditions.

Just for laughs, what would you consider to be definitive proof that man is contributing to global warming?

[PassedOut]

 johnu, on 2018-August-03, 03:35, said:

Yes, much of the work has been computer climate modeling. It's real science, just like the weather predicting computer models that track hurricanes and typhoons, and predict tornadoes, etc.

Yes, predictions of the future depend upon modeling. It's interesting that Trump has picked a science adviser expert in modeling: Trump Finally Picks a Science Adviser

Quote

President Trump will nominate Kelvin Droegemeier, a well-regarded meteorologist who studies severe storms, to be director of the federal Office of Science and Technology Policy.

…

Meteorologists praised Dr. Droegemeier for his distinguished research career.

“Kelvin is an excellent choice — a highly qualified scientist,” said William B. Gale, chief technology officer of the Global Weather Corporation and a former president of the American Meteorological Society.

In the 1990s, Dr. Droegemeier recognized that new advances in radar technology and computers might make it possible to predict the development of thunderstorms.

“Other people were saying thunderstorms are too random and unpredictable,” said Keith Brewster, a senior research scientist at the University of Oklahoma who first worked with Dr. Droegemeier as a graduate student. “People were saying, you’re crazy for even trying this.”

Dr. Droegemeier went ahead anyway, devising new computer models that improved storm predictions. He became the director of the university’s Center for Analysis and Prediction of Storms. He went on to co-found the National Science Foundation’s Science and Technology Center for Analysis and Prediction of Storms, as well as the N.S.F.’s Engineering Research Center for Collaborative Adaptive Sensing of the Atmosphere.

Dr. Droegemeier is now vice president for research at the University of Oklahoma and the state’s secretary of science and technology.

I have no idea how this will play out, but it can't be bad that Trump has at least one competent and sane adviser.

[kenberg]

 PassedOut, on 2018-August-03, 07:20, said:

Yes, predictions of the future depend upon modeling. It's interesting that Trump has picked a science adviser expert in modeling: Trump Finally Picks a Science Adviser


I have no idea how this will play out, but it can't be bad that Trump has at least one competent and sane adviser.

"
In the 1990s, Dr. Droegemeier recognized that new advances in radar technology and computers might make it possible to predict the development of thunderstorms." is worth thinking about. After all, I can predict the development of thunderstorms, but there is no reason anyone should listen to me. Becky has some arthritis, her predictions are more apt top be accurate.The point s that I hope Dr. Droegemeier will be clear about both the usefulness of computer models, I believe that they are useful, and the uncertainty of them.
In 1961 I had a summer job working for a company that did various things with mathematics and computers. I modestly claim that I was the best of their summer employees and they attached me to a group doing some modeling for military purposes. I was low man on the totme pole but I recall thinking that I really hoped no soldier's life or no military operation depended on the validity of what we were doing.

That was in cave man times as far as technology is concerned but I think the fundamental point is still right.The trick is to use technology in a useful way but not to elevate it to god-like status. Computer models can help. Don't bet the house, or the planet, on them being always right. And don't dismiss them as useless because they are sometimes wrong, or sometimes off by a bit. Trust but verify I recall someone once said. I expect that Dr. Droegemeier would agree.

[Al_U_Card]

 johnu, on 2018-August-03, 03:35, said:

And yet, there is almost unanimous agreement among the scientific community.

Scientific consensus: Earth's climate is warming



Yes, much of the work has been computer climate modeling. It's real science, just like the weather predicting computer models that track hurricanes and typhoons, and predict tornadoes, etc.

And of course, you are ignoring countless laboratory experiments which have studied the effects of CO2 under laboratory conditions.

Just for laughs, what would you consider to be definitive proof that man is contributing to global warming?

Despite some considerable adjustment to the historical GT record (by GISS and Hadcrut) there is clearly an increase since the last 200 years with ups and downs lasting decades. Frost fairs on the Thames type winter cold etc. would be undesirable in an England deficient of heating energy and reliant on wind energy. The models all show more warming than we have experienced in the last couple of decades and solar/ocean meteorology tends to favor a cooling after the recent decades-long "hiatus". We shall soon see. The real question revolves around CO2's effect and climate sensitivity studies continue to be in the 1 - 1.5 per doubling. This too will be better constrained in the next couple of decades. The earth hasn't overheated during past CO2 rises so this minor one may not even be discernable from random variation.

Clearly, land-use and especially UHI cause higher temps.Just think about airports. Since 50 years, prop planes replaced by many more jet engines that heat air near the sensors well above ambient temperatures. Concrete and pavement, real world heat sinks. If the prehistorical record showed CO2 to be a significant contributor to global temps then I would accept we should restrict our generation. So far, even IPCC numbers fail to demonstrate how our 5% of global CO2 could even save .05 degrees C of global temperature rise. Too expensive for no real gain ... but does it make us feel less guilty ?

[hrothgar]

 Al_U_Card, on 2018-August-03, 14:28, said:

Clearly, land-use and especially UHI cause higher temps.Just think about airports. Since 50 years, prop planes replaced by many more jet engines that heat air near the sensors well above ambient temperatures. Concrete and pavement, real world heat sinks. If the prehistorical record showed CO2 to be a significant contributor to global temps then I would accept we should restrict our generation. So far, even IPCC numbers fail to demonstrate how our 5% of global CO2 could even save .05 degrees C of global temperature rise.

Of course, none of this does anything to explain the shifts in plant heartiness zones across the world...

[PassedOut]

 kenberg, on 2018-August-03, 08:11, said:

That was in cave man times as far as technology is concerned but I think the fundamental point is still right.The trick is to use technology in a useful way but not to elevate it to god-like status. Computer models can help. Don't bet the house, or the planet, on them being always right. And don't dismiss them as useless because they are sometimes wrong, or sometimes off by a bit.

Yes. Even with the powerful models, weather forecasts are not always correct, but there's no doubt that they are much, much better now than they were years ago.

[Al_U_Card]

 PassedOut, on 2018-August-03, 15:11, said:

Yes. Even with the powerful models, weather forecasts are not always correct, but there's no doubt that they are much, much better now than they were years ago.

Yet they must be reinitialized every 6 hours to give a forecast that is somewhat better than mostly wrong after a couple of days. And weather to come in 50 years can be believed???

[Al_U_Card]

 hrothgar, on 2018-August-03, 14:58, said:

Of course, none of this does anything to explain the shifts in plant heartiness zones across the world...

Plant hardiness does vary according to regional temperatures so in a warming world, they will change accordingly. OTOH, higher CO2 levels have been shown to increase drought resistance through reduced stomatal transpiration. So that is one of the benefits.

[hrothgar]

 Al_U_Card, on 2018-August-03, 20:50, said:

Plant hardiness does vary according to regional temperatures so in a warming world, they will change accordingly. OTOH, higher CO2 levels have been shown to increase drought resistance through reduced stomatal transpiration. So that is one of the benefits.

So you admit that your arguments about heat islands in airports throwing off temperature measurements is bullshiite, then...
Right?

Because one we have settled that issue I am happy to discuss the latest piece of crap that you're selling.

[johnu]

 Al_U_Card, on 2018-August-03, 20:45, said:

Yet they must be reinitialized every 6 hours to give a forecast that is somewhat better than mostly wrong after a couple of days. And weather to come in 50 years can be believed???

Hmmm, I would have thought that an expert such yourself would not be confused by difference between weather and climate.